On Chinua Achebe’s “Civil Peace” by EK Pope

I am reading Heart of Darkness for my Brit Lit II class and just read a brief exert from Chinua Achebe’s criticism on Joseph Conrad. Therefore, I knew a bit about the author beforehand. I really enjoyed Achebe’s “Civil Peace”. Despite its brevity Achebe was able to convey an emotional and societal landscape of Nigeria post colonialism and civil war. While reading the dialogue between the Iwegbu family and the thieves I couldn’t help but think that all the characters were just doing what they could to survive in a broken environment. The short exchange between the Iwegbu’s and the band of thieves shows that people can choose to raise themselves up in a proper way (like Jonathon and his family), or some take the more obvious path of corruption, but who can really blame them? Jonathon’s ingenuity in starting a new life for himself is motivational. Right away he did what he could to raise money for his family. His positive reaction to the robbery is inspiring as well. I really liked this story in general. It relays how strong the human spirit can be, and shows that people can survive and prosper in the wake of tragedy if they are willing to pick of the pieces and start again.

Regarding the language of this story, I wonder why Achebe chooses to write in English rather than the language of his native Nigeria, or for that matter why he does not use Nigerian English for the entire story, since he obviously has a handle of it. It could be to reach a broader audience and spread his message to those who are not from Nigeria or Africa. Or perhaps, Achebe is accepting English as the language of Nigeria, and by using both Standard English and Nigerian English in his work he is showing that he understands both cultures and wants to relate to as many people as possible. I think, though, it is clear Achebe is writing about Nigerian people rather than for them. He is writing, like most authors, with a specific audience in mind. Therefore, I believe Achebe wishes to reach people with a Standard English speaking background, possibly the very people whose nations practice Imperialism and Colonialism. This tactic could be effective in preventing the continuance of these practices by appealing to the pathos of the people.

Read Achebe’s “Civil Peace”

Ryan Mastrangelo on the English language in North America

It was very interesting to read the sections from Barber for today on the evolution of the language in North America. I have family in western Pennsylvania who descended from Dutch settlers, and they use a lot of different vocabulary and pronunciations from what I have encountered on either the west coast or in Philly. I am sure that some of the terms they use are the results of the Dutch language influencing the English being spoken in the area long ago.

I had not really considered how much the mixing of different colonies from European settlers would actually serve to distance North American English from that spoken in the UK. The changes that English went through here were minimal, however, compared to the pidgins and creoles that evolved in Jamaica, or Africa. The blending of two languages is a very interesting thing, and I would love to read more about why certain words remain while others fall out of use or undergo a change in meaning or usage.

I understand that the new land in America necessitated new vocabulary, and that many terms were borrowed from the Native Americans is unsurprising. I can only imagine the pidgin that would have evolved if the European settlers would have intermingled with the Native Americans, combining their cultures and creating a cooperative society, rather than oppress them and dominate the new land, pushing the Native Americans off land they wanted and fostering conflict between the groups. If the former had happened, I am sure we would be speaking a variety of English that is very different from what came to evolve out of the colonization period of American history.

Barber, Charles, Joan C. Beal, Philip A. Shaw.  The English Language a Historical Introduction. 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

On Shakespear’s Sonnets by Ryan Mastrangelo

I have read many of Shakespeare’s sonnets before, in high school and here at Temple, and studied the language used in them in detail. I have not, however, done this with as much historical knowledge about the development of the English language as I now have thanks to this class.  I noticed, for example, that the syntax Shakespeare uses is very different from what a writer of modern English may employ. For example the line “With what I most enjoy contented least” in sonnet 29. Though this is likely because English had relatively recently lost the use of inflections before Shakespeare’s time, so the language’s word order was still developing.

I also was unaware before this class that ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ were considered polite terms to use when addressing a superior, while ‘you’ is considered informal and would be insulting to say to an elder or higher-ranking person. This is something present in the romance languages, but which English has since lost.  I did not observe Shakespeare ever using the word you in these sonnets, though ‘thy’ ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ was used quite frequently in some, such as 135, which seemed to be addressed to a particular person.

On Walter Ong’s “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought” by EK Pope

 In his essay, “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought,” Walter Ong submits that literacy is not an innate human understanding; but a learned process which has developed along with technology as humanity has progressed. He argues that many people do not make the distinction between having an idea, and putting it down on paper; a thought is only legitimate if it is written down.

Ong compares Plato’s theory of writing as an arbitrary human invention to modern day criticisms of technology, notably the computer. He posits that writing is a technology, much like typing on the computer. To write one needs tools and training. Ong comments, “Once reduced to space, words are frozen, and in a sense dead…removed from the living human life world, its rigid fixity, assures its endurance and its potential for being resurrected into limitless living contexts by a limitless number of living readers. The dead, thing like text has potentials far outdistancing those of the simply spoken word” (22). (WOAH, that comment blows my mind. I never thought that writing a thought down extracts it from the human “life world” and transfers it to a different world, the undying world that lives on paper; I never considered an audible versus visual world in this context either.)

In making this comparison Ong is not necessarily insulting the technology of writing he states, “to say writing is artificial is not to condemn it but to praise it” (23). He goes on to discuss the invaluable contributions it has made to humankind.

Ong argues that, “writing has the power to liberate us more and more from the chirographic bias and confusion it creates,” (30) thus writing can actually save us from the follies it creates.  It does so by separating “the known” from “the knower”. The known is whatever fact or thought is being inscribed, and the knower is whoever is writing or reading it. This distinction is quite important as it makes knowledge accessible to some but not others. However, it “also unites the knower and the known more consciously and more articulately” (than the oral world). “Writing is a consciousness-raising and humanizing technology” (31).

In his article Ong discusses the very intriguing idea of multiple realities existing among the human experience. He makes a distinction between the life that lives in the oral tradition, and the form of death that takes place once thoughts are written down. I found this idea very interesting, as it is something that I have never contemplated. I have always considered reading and writing as something that is inherently good; but Ong posses just the opposite. This article has persuaded me to reevaluate other aspects of my life that I consider to be good or bad, or just do unconsciously.  This thought gestures back to the Literary Log assignment. It is also interesting that Ong argues that writing is just like any other technology that humans have developed. I had never thought of it in that sense, but it is easily defendable as it began relatively late in the human existence. It can’t even be argued as inherent as it was invented much after tools such as hunting gear and the wheel! Thus why should society look down upon someone who has not yet learned this skilled trait? However, soon I’m sure people who are considered “computer illiterate” will be looked down upon just as people who cannot read or write.

PDF of “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought,” Walter Ong

Anglo Saxon Chronicle EK Pope

When reading today’s assignment I realized that I had no idea what the “Anglo Saxon Chronicle” was. So I looked it up and discovered that it was a collection of annals which chronicled the history of the Saxons and was updated by scribes in monasteries.
One of these chronicles was still being updated as late as the mid twelfth century. The first poem we read narrates the Saxon victory at Brunanburh which “was important in establishing national unity under West Saxon dominion” (51).  I read more about this battle and learned that the unification may have been due to the fact that the English forces were so weakened they had to consolidate in order to prevail. I found that interesting as this alliance had a major effect on what England is today.

The Battle of Brunanburh was written as commemoration for specific leaders in the battle. I realized that throughout history poetry has been a major part of nationalism and we still incorporate this tradition today in the United States with the Poet Laureate, but poetry is definitely not as important to politics as it once was.

While reading the OE I spotted some of the tendencies which we have talked about in class. For instance, in the name Eadweard I noticed that the first ‘a’ has disappeared along with the second ‘e’ to create Edward. Also while reading the OE I really enjoyed the poetic kennings. I think that these words are wonderfully descriptive and really enrich the poem with imagery. Interested by the idea of compounding descriptive words I searched the internet to find modern poets who might use similar tactics and found an interesting article in the Huffington Post which described language as “a ravenous, all-encompassing beast…its unpredictable evolution swallows and mutates words from all sources.” I thought this was a great description for the development of language, and depicts its fluid evolution. It talks about famous authors’ intentional use of ‘made up’ words, which made me think about how botched words in the media have become a part of pop culture, such as the many ‘Bushisms’ from the last presidency. He talks about misuse of language for satirical reasons, such as Stephen Colbert’s use of “truthiness”. The writer discusses catch phrases created by great authors such as Joseph Heller’s phrase ‘Catch-22’. I just found it interesting that both unintentionally misusage in language and conscious creation of language have an effect on its development. I especially enjoy that poets and authors still have the ability to create legitimate words and phrases. As the writer contends the “indiscriminate gluttony may give pause to some who wish that language could be shined and preserved like a fine vase. Fortunately for literature lovers, some of the finest writers ever have given us some of the most successful words ever.”

In case you’re interested…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-peters/made-up-words-neologism_b_703977.html

Works Cited

Burnley, David. The History of the English Language: A  Source Book. 2nd ed. Pearson/Longman Press, 200o.

Ha Kam Wi Tawk Pidgin Yet?

part 1

part 2

part 3

“Richard Rodriguez is Full of It” by MK Daley

Reading Richard Rodriguez’s essay “Aria” was one of the most infuriating tasks of my academic career thanks to what I have narrowed down to be his lack of pride: in himself, his success, both of his languages, his family and his heritage. One of the things that really stuck with me from my Linguistics class was the evidence that has been found that suggests that people who are proud of their language are much more capable of speaking it properly and fluently. This is a very important factor when it comes to learning a language, either a native language or a second language; pride is essential. Without the feeling of respect for a language, one cannot expect to learn it and apply it well. While I think this is true to an extent in all fields, for instance, if you do not enjoy and appreciate math, you will not make for a successful mathematician, with language, pride can come from many different origins.

For Rodriguez, English was difficult to learn because he met it with such resistance. He admits this throughout the essay, however he fails to address the fact that this resistance comes from a lack of respect for the English language. He felt outcast and ashamed because of his broken English, but instead of seeking to better his position, he sought to run from the language. I truly believe he would have had much quicker success acquiring English as a second language had it not been introduced to him in a way that made him feel like it was encroaching on his life, rather than enhancing it. The same thing happened with Spanish for him after he did embrace English, mainly out of necessity. He then became ashamed of the way his parents spoke Spanish instead of English, making it out to be a substandard language compared to English. Again, had he been taught to embrace both languages, say had his parents still spoken to him in Spanish when at home, except perhaps for an hour or so in order to practice English, he would not have felt the need to chose between the two languages, and in essence could have been fluently bilingual. This is where I see bilingual education as being a positive thing, as long as it approaches both languages equally and fairly. Another important aspect of learning a second language is the ability to distinguish its proper uses. For this reason, there should be a clear separation of when it is appropriate and effective to use each language. Bilingual education helps to establish this separation while allowing students to maintain access to public life and private origin. Identity, as Rodriguez likes to call it, comes from pride in the language you speak and the actions you perform, not the actual language or manner in which you do it.

Documentary: “AMERICAN TONGUES” by Andrew Crowley

A few times this semester, the documentary “American Tongues” came up in discussion. As a Linguistics major, I’ve watched it in no fewer than three different classes here at Temple. Normally, that kind of repetitive overexposure would be grating on a busy student, but this documentary is so fascinating, funny and easy to relate to that I never  get tired of watching it. In fact–nerd alert!–I’ve watched the Youtube clips many times.

The documentary, made in the 1980s, takes a look at various regional dialects in contemporary US English and the status judgments that accompany them. More than once this semester, someone made the comment in class discussion that native speakers of British English tend to be more elitist in regards to dialect than Americans are; I think this documentary challenges such assertions. Some of the vicious truths about attitudes towards Southern, Brooklyn, and African-American dialects, for example, are brought out in living color. Meanwhile, some rare and endangered dialects such as the British-sounding Brahmin English of New England and the alien-sounding dialect of the Gullah Islands are foregrounded, and the diversity of US English is put on fascinating display.

Each time I’ve watched this video in a class, it has instantly and permanently changed the nature of class discussions for the rest of the semester: here is undeniable proof that everyone has a dialect, that dialectical differences are arbitrary, and that most of the assumptions people make–consciously or not–about speakers of other dialects are generally unfounded and unnecessarily damaging or otherwise unfair.

Plus, it’s hilarious. Watch the woman from Pittsburgh try her hardest to remember another form of her dialect’s word “gumbands”…only to remember, vaguely, that she may once or twice have heard them referred to as “rubber bands.”

Unfortunately, no one has put the entire documentary on Youtube as of the writing of this blog post. Here, though, are a few nice-sized chunks. I believe there is a VHS copy on reserve at the Temple library if anyone has any interest in seeing the complete video. Highly recommended.

Part 1 –

Part 2 –

Part 3 –

On the Great Vowel Shift by EK Pope

            I am struck by how quickly changes occurred in English pronunciation during and directly after the reformation; compared to Elizabethan times and now. Barber attributes this change to the Great Vowel Shift; which took place throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth century. After the vowel shift, which reallocates the stress of the vowel from the middle/end of a word to the first vowel in a word, the pronunciation of English seems to have leveled out. I wonder, if historically, this mirrors England’s transformation from a land that was constantly in turmoil from being conquered (Scandinavian incursions, Norman conquest) to a powerful nation that did the conquering (the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Union of the Crowns in 1603). The political stability brought on by Queen Elizabeth after the reformation may have helped to stabilize the country as a whole, and facilitate the standardization of English and a proliferation of English works. This standardization would have been aided by the development of London as a socio-political center in England. Having a central location to hold as the dialectical standard (the London standard) may have encouraged those around London to use its dialect. Thinking about pronunciation prompted me to listen to some of the Shakespearian sonnets that were assigned read out loud. While looking on Youtube, many of the readings were posted by amateurs (like me); however, I found one man who sounded fairly accurate (to my novice ear). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX9WQg9nxN4&feature=related.

            Barber says that famous authors such as Edmund Spenser and John Milton, wanted to create nationalistic works that would solidify England as a power as great as Rome or ancient Greece; they wanted to do for England what the likes of Homer and Virgil did for Rome. This seems slightly contradictory since many intellectuals (especially the Protestants) were denying the proliferation of Latin works; accusing the Latin language as being pretentious and denying knowledge from the lower class. So nationalistic writers wanted to solidify the English language as academically worthy, even more so than Latin; yet modeled their works on Latin literature. To me that seems like they may be saying that Roman culture is higher than anything that the English could originally produce.  Although, I know they weren’t trying to deny the impact of Roman culture. It just seems that being original, rather than taking a neoclassic approach may have made more sense.

            It seems like Shakespeare may have had the same goal of his contemporaries, but he was extremely creative and original with his use of linguistics (not to say Spenser and Milton were not great authors). Shakespeare was not afraid to be silly with his words, and would often make up words to describe an intimate feeling which he could not find a word to explain. Shakespeare also helped to propel the evolution of language. In his sonnets, one can see the use of both “you and thou”. Thus Shakespeare was a true “mover and shaker” of the English language.

Works Cited

Barber, Charles, Joan C. Beal, Philip A. Shaw.  The English Language a Historical Introduction. 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 185-211. Print.

Human communication more important than animal communication? by EK Pope

While reading Barber, I am struck by his precise definition of language. He claims that language is “a signaling system which operates with symbolic vocal sounds, and which is used by some group for the purposes of communication and social cooperation” (pp. 26). This sounds like a definition which could expand beyond human communication, perhaps into the realm of the animal kingdom. However, Barber is quick to explain that the “social cooperation” of animals is much less detailed than that of humankind. Baber’s qualifier seems to imply that the language of people is more complex and therefore more important. This condescending view toward animals is one that I do not appreciate. I know that many philosophers and the like argue that mankind’s intellect and perception of the world makes our being more significant than that of a cockroach, but why is this general opinion? I suppose because we can talk about it. However, the animal world is just as vital, or pointless (whatever your philosophical inclination) as humanity. To dismiss animal communication as “inarticulate utterances” (as he does earlier in the chapter) perpetuates the common notion that people run this planet; that may be so, but we’re running on empty. This egocentric view of reality is what will destroy not only the planet, but humanity.

That being said, it is important to understand human speech and the particulars of how it functions. I simply perceive his definition to be rigid and exclusionary.   

Works Cited

Barber, Charles, Joan C. Beal, Philip A. Shaw. The English Language a Historical Introduction. 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 1-31. Print.